For years, researchers have admitted the possibility that he says he has now confirmed -- that children raised by homosexual parents are more apt to become homosexual themselves.

Nevertheless, Schumm's article, which will be published in the November edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, has triggered a firestorm since it began circulating online this summer. Irate advocates for the normalization of homosexuality accused him of ideological bias and shoddy research.

But Schumm, a professor of family studies at Kansas State University, said he rigorously tried to disprove his own theory. Ultimately, he reached a conclusion that mainstream sociologists, and even a prominent gay activist, have described as common sense.

In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents' children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual.

Furthermore, Schumm observed gay parents' children increasingly identifying as homosexual as they emerged from adolescence. His analysis of families with older children showed that one-third of gay fathers' families, and 58 percent of families of lesbian mothers, included at least one gay or lesbian child.

Most scholars actually agree with the concept that gay people ought to be more likely to have gay children, he told CNA in an Oct. 19 interview. Even people on the liberal side of things actually pretty much agree with the idea that there are going to be social influences.

He noted that prominent gay activist Jim Burroway has criticized proponents of the parental influence theory but has also said that such findings would not be surprising. In a column published on a gay and lesbian website in 2006, Burroway noted that virtually every theory about the origin of homosexuality would likely predict a higher incidence in children of gay parents.

Schumm wanted to test that prediction, and to improve on previous research he said was too limited and not sufficiently rigorous. He analyzed data obtained from 26 studies of gay parents and their children. He noted that many of the studies' authors had dismissed the idea of a parental influence on childrens homosexuality.

Those researchers, Schumm believes, chose to ignore or downplay the significance of their own findings. Even when attempting to disprove his hypothesis -- for instance, by classifying the significant number of respondents who showed no clearly defined sexual preference as heterosexual in the analysis, or assuming that up to a third of those identified as homosexuals could have been erroneously categorized-- Schumm consistently confirmed the hypothesis among 218 families.

His paper makes no assertions as to the exact origin of homosexual behavior. But the professor has indicated some of the pathways through which he believes homosexual parents may influence children. These include parents' attitudes toward adolescent sexual experimentation, and ideas about men and relationships that Schumm said tended to prevail in some lesbian households.

Gen 19: 4 But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them: 6 Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: 7 Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.

RE :”In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents’ children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual. “

Is it possible that these homosexual couples are passing along this ‘gay’ gene when they reproduce, er when they adopt? Now I am really confused. How do same sex couples reproduce to pass on their gay genes that all liberals talk about?

5
posted on 10/22/2010 5:50:10 AM PDT
by sickoflibs
("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")

In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents’ children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual.It is a behavior, it is a learned behavior, it is destructive behavior.

The HIGHEST molestation rates with kids are with SAME SEX COUPLES and SAME SEX kids. That is a FACT. It is shocking. When you compare the SMALL PERCENTAGE that “gays” are of our population - maybe 1-3% and compare the MOLESTATION RATE with molestations that happen with heterosexuals, HANDS DOWN of the percentages “gays” win.

I haven’t read the paper (or the entire post, for that matter), but as regards the “nature/nurture” controversy, the key question in this study is what fraction of the children of these couples were children by adoption, and what fraction (if any) were children by artificial insemination?

IMHO this is pure crap. Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle. It is genetic. There is really a very simple question to ask: Who would choose to be homosexual if they were not?

Also, I recall a story years back where a woman gave birth to a boy. During circumcision the doctor “alleges” he slipped with the knife and castrated the boy. The parents subsequently raised the child as a girl. Upon reaching adulthood this person reverted to heterosexual male. This wasn’t some obscure story in an obscure report. It was reported nationally. Probably can Google it if one is patient enough to find the right combination of words.

Non-homosexual children of homosexual parents may be more open to sexual experimentation than heteros, but in the end they will always return to their natural gender.

I’m not homosexual nor are any of my children. But it really bothers me when self-described Christians actually become hateful toward homosexuals. Shame on you. They are God’s children, too.

Of course, I’m outraged as you are, at the depravity that is put on public display at Gay Pride parades. But the reality is that this very visible, vocal and disgusting group does not represent the majority of homosexuals.

Most of these people just want to be left alone. All they want is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One thing they don’t want is to be judged on their sexuality.

I have mixed feelings about allowing homosexual partners to adopt kids. On the one hand I’m absolutely certain most of them would be responsible care givers. The problem is discerning which of them would be responsible and those who would not.

Notice I did not refer to marriage above. The concept of homosexual marriage is ludicrous. IMHO, the homosexual marriage quest is simply a desperate attempt by a bunch of genetically deficient people to be considered normal. Nothing more. Nothing less. That said, I don’t hate them. But I will work very hard to defeat their agenda. There is a difference.

Sexual attraction in a gay or lesbian relationship is totally based upon what is intellectually acceptable. Thus the research results shown make sense. Gender attraction is based upon intellectual beliefs.

The real subconscious attraction in relationships follows two rules:

1. We are attracted toward individuals whose personality is similar to individuals with whom we have unresolved conflict. It's the reason many of us marry someone like one of our parents. It's a soul cleansing attraction.

2. We look for in others, that which we deny in ourselves. Thus it is masculine attracted toward feminine and vice versa. If a male has a feminine personality, he will be attracted toward a masculine female and vice versa.

I can show in a lab setting that a straight macho male will become very homophobic by the subconscious attraction toward a feminine male. This is what causes much gay bashing, i.e. the internal conflict of the basher.

Suggest you read post 20. People are complex. There are no doubt multiple reasons people are born or choose to be homosexual.

"Born homosexual" can include non-genetic prenatal influences as well as genetics. Most birth defects are not genetic, or at least not entirely genetic. IOW, the information carried on the genes is not always properly implemented. The thalidomide babies, for instance, were not genetically damaged.

Who would choose to be homosexual if they were not?

The problem with this theory is that it applies equally well to any other behavior of which society disapproves.

Who would choose to be a child molester, serial murderer, psychopath, exhibitionist, rapist, or whatever? Not to mention a lazy person, drug addict, ugly person, alcoholic or any other unpopular category.

Yet we recognize that people generally bear some degree of responsibility for winding up in one of these groups, although certainly genetic or other "inborn" characteristics often have an influence. We also recognize that the environment around a person influences their likelihood of winding up in such a group.

It seems pretty obvious to me that "homosexuality," like just about all other human behaviors, is a complex mix of "inborn," environmental and "personal choice" factors, with the ratio between these factors varying greatly by individual.

28
posted on 10/22/2010 6:35:26 AM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(You shall know the truth, and it shall piss you off mightily)

remember the jenny jones show where a homosexual, with the help of jenny jones and her producers, humiliated a strait male by having the homosexual before an audience profess profess his attraction to the man on the stage? It ended in murder and the jenny jones show was liable.

In my mind this whole thing about homosexuality having some type of genetic link up is hogwash for if this were really true how would they repopulate? I grant you that with medical technology as it is today this is not difficult. However homosexuality has been around at lot longer than that. I convinced that it is a learned behavior and a lifestyle choice. If there were a gay “gene” believe me they would have found it already.

“”IMHO this is pure crap. Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle. It is genetic. There is really a very simple question to ask: Who would choose to be homosexual if they were not?””

I my research, I can usually identify the exact time in a person’s life where their sexual preference changed. The only time I have not been able to find this event is where a person was raised in an environment where being gay or lesbian was acceptable from birth.

Yes, I have conducted research on quite a few gays and lesbians over the years. I do not judge them, I only seek to help them understand themselves. I do not seek to change them, only to help them identify the subconscious self sabotage patterns as a result of the inner conflict created by their subconscious emotional beliefs adopted as a child and their current lifestyle actions. This directly influences their immune system.

Well, there is a science called epigenetics which proposes that life experiences can alter children's genes beyond the underlying DNA including those genes that control behavior and these changes can later be passed on physically to the future offspring of these children.

“”You can show also through reason that males and females should be sexually attracted to each other when biological facts are considered, which allows one to judge the abnormal for what it is.””

Ever hear of “epigenetics?” I work with the formulation of perception and what influences the biochemical reactions. I do not discount the DNA and biochemical results, but go further to show how perception is formulated and how it influences the physical results.

I don't think that hardly anyone consciously chooses to be homosexual but it is clearly not solely genetic. Even liberal science has concluded that it is 35% genetic and 65% nurtured. Thus, children being raised by gay parents would logically increase the chance of the children being gay. Plus, as I mentioned early, there is the theory of epigenetics which proposes that early experiences alter genes of children and this alteration can be passed on physically to later generations.

I think a more interesting study would be the number of kids of heterosexual parents who say they are homosexual, vs the number of kids that come out of a family where the mother or father later claim they are homosexual, who say they too are homosexual.

Because there are a lot of homosexual kids born to heterosexual parents. But I don’t yet recall any cases where kids in a family where the father “announced” they were gay also came out and said they were gay.

You’d think that if homosexuality was purely genetic that you’d get more homosexual kids from a relationship between a gay man and a straight woman, than with a straight couple.

Of course, if you discount in-vitro fertilization and other “rented womb” births (which really are a very small part of the births in this country), then you’d have to expect that the push to “normalize” homosexuality at a young age would pretty much spell the end to homosexuality, since no homosexuals would mate, and their gene pool would be wiped out.

Muslim families are more likely to have Muslim children. Democrat families are somewhat more likely to have Democrat children. Is that 100% genetic? Is intelligence or criminality 100% genetic? Should parents be allowed to genetically test their children in the womb and abort the druggies and rapists?

The truth is closer to 50/50 nature/nurture for any complex human behavior. It's the 50% nurture part that is the problem with gays adopting children.

44
posted on 10/22/2010 7:29:00 AM PDT
by Reeses
(Now is the autumn of our discontent.)

Which is why I am, and have always been, utterly appalled by the idea of gay adoption. Especially for children from broken homes.

I was one such child, having spent close to a year on the streets and then about eight more being bounced around from children’s shelters to foster homes and back, and I KNOW that with any child in that or a similar situation, the most important thing in their hearts is “bonding” with their new family.

One of the fastest and most obvious way a child expresses his willingness to “join the family” is to adopt the religion of his new family. I don’t care if the child was formerly an intensely religious Catholic — put him in a Mormon foster home, and within three months he will be a Mormon.

Well, guess what? To homosexuals, their sexuality IS their religion. Period! It defines them, it colors everything about their relationships with everyone around them. Put a straight kid, or one who would most likely grow up to be normal in a family with gay “parents” and he will adapt. He will adopt the “religion” of his new family.

This is a total no-brainer to me, as obvious as observing that water is wet.

47
posted on 10/22/2010 8:01:08 AM PDT
by Ronin
(If he were not so gruesomely incompetent and dangerous, Obama would just be silly.)

Yes, it is mostly for recruiting vulnerable children into homosexuality. NAMBLA says, if not by eight then it’s too late but adolescent behavior can be conditioned to abnormal behavior by having it presented as normal. It breaks down normal inhibitions and creates a false “everyone does it” scenario. With the glorification in MEDIA of the lifestyle, plus its glorification in sex education courses in schools and glorification with day of silence agitprop, we are creating a very dysfunctional society.

But that is what the Cultural Marxist does...to destroy Western Civilization they have to destroy the family and Christianity—two pillars of this nation. We should not allow this abomination....as did the Founders.

For some reason people love to cling to the utterly non-proven idea that anyone is "born gay". On this very thread, no less! Even coming up with "it's fifty percent nuture and fifty percent nature"! Such idiotic theories are invented out of whole cloth. There is zero - zilch - absolutely no evidence whatsoever (although they've been looking for decades) that prove homosexuality is genetic or biological in origin. The very fact that there are countless numbers of former homosexuals is proof that homosexuals are made, not born. And this article is more proof.

50
posted on 10/22/2010 8:38:52 AM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.